2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4941
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ
NIMISHA DUA – Appellant
Versus
VAIBHAV OBEROI – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7125 OF 2025 | SLP(C) No.8151/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ashmita, Adv., Mr. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Adv., Ms. Somyashree, Adv., Ms. Aditi Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR, Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv., Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv., Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv., Mr. Yashas J, Adv., Ms. Shweta Singh, Adv., Ms. Ashi Sharma, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv., Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv., Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv.
The court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 when irretrievable breakdown is established, rendering previous divorce decrees void.
Headnote:The Supreme Court of India reviewed a civil appeal arising from a matrimonial dispute wherein the High Court had previously allowed the preservation of call detail records. The parties' marriage, solemnized on 14.01.2021, had irretrievably broken down resulting in mutual consent for divorce. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolving the marriage and nullifying a prior Australian divorce decree. The Court quashed various related proceedings as they were rendered infructuous. The marriage is dissolved by decree of divorce and related cases are disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage disputes require mutual consent for dissolution. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court acknowledges prior decrees need reconsideration under article 142. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal was originally directed against an order dated 07.03.2023 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in a matrimonial case, whereby the respondent’s application seeking preservation of call detail records of the appellant-wife was allowed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.01.2021. Soon thereafter, disputes arose leading to registration of FIR No.247/2021 on 06.11.2021 under Sections 498A , 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . It followed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the “DV Act”) and then an anti-injunction suit before the Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi. Meanwhile, the appellant-wife Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT also filed a petition seeking decree of divorce.
Date: 2025.05.28 Reason:
3. The impugned order directing preservation of the call records was stayed on 04.05.2023 with a subsequent modification made by this Court on 29.05.2023.
4. The matter has been taken up on different dates wherein the parties were impressed upon to amicably settle the dispute, especially for the reason that the respondent-husband claims himself to be an Australian citizen and he further claims that a decree of divorce was granted in his favour by an Australian Court.
5. Since the marriage was solemnized in India, we had several reasons in law to disregard the decree and again emphasized that the parties should amicably resolve the disputes.
6. Eventually, appellant-wife has filed this application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under
“a) Allow the present application thereby dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown in exercise of power under
7. Since the respondent was not signatory to the above-stated application, opportunity was granted to him to file an affidavit of consent. The respondent has consequently filed his affidavit dated 20.05.2025.
Paragraph 5 thereof reads as follows:
“5. I further state that I consent to the Australian divorce decree being declared null and void in India, consequent to the grant of divorce by this Hon’ble Court under
8. The respondent, however, has made a prayer that all the other cases pending between the parties, including criminal cases may be annulled.
9. The appellant-wife also has no objection thereto.
10. It is a case where the parties after their marriage could stay together for hardly a few months and being an irretrievably broken marriage, we are satisfied that it is a case to invoke powers under
11. Consequently, the alleged decree of divorce passed by a Court in Australia is declared to be null and void having no binding effect on the parties.
12. Resultantly, the following cases also stand quashed/resolved/disposed of:
(i) Complaint Case No.8/2022, titled ‘Nimisha Dua vs. Vaibhav Oberoi and Ors’, filed by the appellant-wife under DV Act, pending before the MM, Mahila Court, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(ii) HMA No.426/2022, titled ‘Nimisha Dua vs. Vaibhav Oberoi’, filed by